U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)

Re: slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)


Another camera you might check out is the Panasonic Lumix the newest model has a 12x optical zoom, 10 megapixels and it is less than 8 oz in weight.  A friend has an earlier version and really likes it.
On Jun 26, 2009, at 4:14:32 PM, "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com> wrote:

From:"Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
Subject:slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)
Date:June 26, 2009 4:14:32 PM CDT

I meant to mention this yesterday, when you could still (as I understand 
it) log onto the daily NY Times free of charge, but the day itself (like 
so much else) got away from me. The item appeared on page 5 of the 
Business section, bylined John Biggs--- titled "Little Cameras With Big 
Eyes" (a bit cute, but they didn't ask me). It describes and shows 5 
(relatively) small digital cameras with "ultrazoom" lenses, that is, with 
large optical zooms (tho Biggs points out that none of these zooms is in 
fact as large as the manufacturer's claim, which "requires a camera larger 
than the latest ultracompact models").

The five are:

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-HX1 -- rated A plus

Canon PowerShot SX200 IS -- rated A minus

Olympus SP-590UZ -- rated B plus

Nikon CoolPix P90 -- rated B

Kodak Z980 -- rated C

As I mentioned a couple of days ago, I'm having visions of a camera 
quicker on the draw than my (circa 6-year old) Canon, which is otherwise 
exemplary, so I read this page with special interest. Unfortunately, tho 
very informative, it was not "parallel," that is, it didn't give the same 
info for all. For instance, the Nikon was "one of the fastest we tested" 
(but "its zoomed image quality was probably the worst") and the Kodak was 
"the slowest we tested, with lag times of up to 3 seconds." The Sony was 
"quick and sharp" (and "in terms of shooting speed won hands down" -- tho 
the speed is not quantified) and the darn thing weighs 16 ounces -- only 2 
ounces more than my present Canon, tho that's already a bit of a load to 
carry in my purse *always*, as I do. (And on the page the Sony also looks 
much bulkier).

Of course if wishes were cameras, the new Canon PowerShot, which weighs 
"about 8 ounces" would also be fast, tho speed is not mentioned -- besides 
which, do I want to buy a camera that "notifies" me if the subject blinks? 
(Others have features that shoot when the subject is smiling !!!! Is this 
photo-fascism, or group think?) I also regret that the weight was only 
mentioned for 2 (maybe the lightest & heaviest?).

A couple of folks on the list have recommended OTHER cameras, which 
probably don't check for smiles, so it may well turn out to be none of the 
above... (tho, as the man said after his nervous breakdown when he got a 
job just rolling apples over a grid with holes to sort them by size:
"Decisions, decisions, decisions").

In any event, I share the info, which, as far as it goes, could be useful 
or at least interesting to others.

PS. I remember that 6 years ago there was a website that gave data on 
every camera in the known universe. Does anyone know if that still 
exists... or even recall the URL ???